Zheng v. Garland ( 2022 )

19-3435
Zheng v. Garland
BIA
Cassin, IJ
A208 167 168
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION
TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED
AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS
COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT
FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX
OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A
PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY
NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall
3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of
4 New York, on the 1st day of February, two thousand twenty-
5 two.
6
7 PRESENT:
8 JOHN M. WALKER, JR.,
9 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN,
10 MYRNA PÉREZ,
11 Circuit Judges.
12 _____________________________________
13
14 JINLONG ZHENG,
15 Petitioner,
16
17 v. 19-3435
18 NAC
19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED
20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22 _____________________________________
23
24 FOR PETITIONER: Gerald Karikari, Esq., Karikari &
25 Associates, P.C., New York, NY.
26
27 FOR RESPONDENT: Ethan P. Davis, Acting Assistant
28 Attorney General; Shelley R. Goad,
1 Assistant Director; Elizabeth R.
2 Chapman, Trial Attorney, Office of
3 Immigration Litigation, United
4 States Department of Justice,
5 Washington, DC.
6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
7 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
8 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
9 is DENIED.
10 Petitioner Jinlong Zheng, a native and citizen of the
11 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an October 7,
12 2019 decision of the BIA affirming a February 26, 2018
13 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum,
14 withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention
15 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Jinlong Zheng, No. A 208 167
16 168 (B.I.A. Oct. 7, 2019), aff’g No. A 208 167 168 (Immig. Ct.
17 N.Y.C. Feb. 26, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity
18 with the underlying facts and procedural history.
19 We consider the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA.
20 See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005).
21 We review the agency’s adverse credibility determination for
22 substantial evidence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong
23 Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018).
24 “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all
2
1 relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility
2 determination on the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of
3 the applicant or witness, . . . the consistency between the
4 applicant’s or witness’s written and oral statements . . . ,
5 [and] the internal consistency of each such statement . . .
6 without regard to whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or
7 falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant’s claim, or any
8 other relevant factor.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). “We
9 defer . . . to an IJ’s credibility determination unless, from
10 the totality of the circumstances, it is plain that no
11 reasonable fact-finder could make such an adverse credibility
12 ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir.
13 2008); accord Hong Fei Gao, 891 F.3d at 76.
14 Zheng argues that he presented a credible claim of
15 religious persecution. We conclude that substantial evidence
16 supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination. The
17 agency reasonably relied on multiple inconsistencies
18 regarding Zheng’s statements and evidence as to his wife’s
19 location, his introduction to Christianity, his fear of
20 sterilization, his efforts to obtain documents to flee China,
21 and his arrest. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii). In
3
1 addition, the agency reasonably relied on the fact that
2 Zheng’s 2012 tourist visa to visit the United States was
3 revoked because his visa application contained fraudulent
4 documents. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). The agency
5 did not err in concluding that his willingness to use
6 fraudulent documents undermined his credibility because Zheng
7 applied for his tourist visa before his alleged introduction
8 to Christianity and persecution. Cf. Siewe v. Gonzales, 480
9 F.3d 160, 170 (2d Cir. 2007) (listing circumstances where
10 false documents may not undermine credibility, including
11 where “fraudulent documents . . . were created
12 to escape persecution”). The agency did not err in declining
13 to credit Zheng’s explanation for these inconsistencies. See
14 Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 2005) (“A
15 petitioner must do more than offer a plausible explanation
16 for his inconsistent statements to secure relief; he must
17 demonstrate that a reasonable fact-finder would be
18 compelled to credit his testimony.” (internal quotation marks
19 omitted)); Siewe, 480 F.3d at 167 (holding that where there
20 are “two permissible views of the evidence,” we defer to the
21 agency’s choice “so long as the deductions are not illogical
4
1 or implausible” (quotation marks omitted)). Finally, the
2 agency reasonably relied on Zheng’s failure to provide
3 documentary evidence corroborating events in China or his
4 practice of Christianity in the United States. See 8 U.S.C.
5 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii); Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273
6 (2d Cir. 2007) (“An applicant’s failure to corroborate his or
7 her testimony may bear on credibility, because the absence of
8 corroboration in general makes an applicant unable to
9 rehabilitate testimony that has already been called into
10 question.”).
11 In sum, given the multiple inconsistencies and lack of
12 corroboration, substantial evidence supports the agency’s
13 adverse credibility determination. See 8 U.S.C.
14 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167; see also
15 Likai Gao v. Barr, 968 F.3d 137, 145 n.8 (2d Cir. 2020)
16 (“[E]ven a single inconsistency might preclude an alien from
17 showing that an IJ was compelled to find him credible.
18 Multiple inconsistencies would so preclude even more
19 forcefully.”). The adverse credibility determination is
20 dispositive of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief
21 because all three forms of relief relied on the same factual
5
1 predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d
2 Cir. 2006).
3 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
4 DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and
5 stays VACATED.
6 FOR THE COURT:
7 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,
8 Clerk of Court
9
6